1/30/2012

The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are “entitlement society” — as used by Mitt Romney — and “poor work ethic” and “food stamp president” — as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the “Founding Fathers” and the “Constitution” also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core “old-fashioned American values.”

Yeah, any time I hear someone talk about the “Constitution” I can tell they’re racists.

The fact is, if you hear the n-word every time someone talks about our entitlement society, the person with the race problem is YOU. If you hear “American values” and think “bigot” then the person with the race problem is YOU. If talking about the Founding Fathers seems racist, the person with the race problem is YOU.

If everything sounds like racism to you, Juan Williams, you might be a racist.

I think it’s about time we just admitted we’re racists and got defiant about it. If that’s your definition of racism, then what’s wrong with it? If that’s your definition of racism then I’m proud to be a racist. The game the left is playing is an old one: get universal agreement that X is bad, and then slowly shift the definition of X to include more and more things that were never agreed to be bad. The syllogism goes “If X is bad, and Y is X, then Y must be bad.” But the correct response is “Y was never bad before, and it doesn’t become bad by defining it as X. X is only bad if it doesn’t include Y. If X includes Y, then only some instances of X are bad while others are good.”

It’s part of a general leftist philosophy of elevating words above substance. Because they deny that substance actually exists; that we can know any absolute truths. All “truths” are really about language, so by manipulating language we can make whatever we like become true. Hence Focault.

Any argument about “code words” is intrinsically insulting, and instantly reveals the arguer to be arguing in the worst of bad faith. If anything I say can be reinterpreted at will by the person arguing with me, then that person might just as well be engaged in a monologue, and I’m completely superfluous to his own self-stimulation.

Williams has had better days that this, even for a reliable leftie. How quickly he forgets his treatment at NPR!

“To say the least this is a chilling assault on free speech. The critical importance of honest journalism and a free flowing, respectful national conversation needs to be had in our country. But it is being buried as collateral damage in a war whose battles include political correctness and ideological orthodoxy.”

Race is always a trigger in politics, but now a third of the nation are people of color — and their numbers are growing. With those minorities solidly in the Democratic camp and behind the first black president, the scene is set for a bonanza of racial politics.

Don’t forget what one of the august members of the Congressional Black Caucus (was it Charles Rangel or John Conyers or someone else?) told us about twelve years ago: tax cuts are code words for institutional racism.

If you can’t understand how this all works, just remember the old joke: What’s the definition of a bigot? Someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.

Regardless of how they were intended, poor people and minorities sense that with those comments Gingrich is winking — some call it “dog whistling” — at certain white audiences by intimating that black people are lazy, happy to live off the government and lacking any intellect.

Isn’t this about intentionalism? The intent of the speaker does not matter; what determines the actual meaning of the statement is how a select group of people interpret them. But it also doesn’t matter that the select group of people already have their own presuppositions and assumptions solidly in place about the speaker and his assumed views before they even hear the statement.

Juan Williams was on O’Reilly tonight defending Occupy Wall St. assclowns as speaking for America. Economist/actor Ben Stein agreed that California would vote for Urkel in a big way because of ethnic groups Obama relates to. Cannot that be deemed racist? Soros seems to think Romney is another Obama and told the Euroweenie libtards not to fear Romney in the race. I keep hearing that Obama is a great salesman but cannot fathom why people seem to think so, other than he managed to push through Obamacare and paid off his cronies and contributors through stimuli funds. Seems people are just ignorant about the eventual effects of printing money. Sooner or later the kaka will hit the fan. Personally I’d like to see the DC pols and banking crooks hanging in the fashion of Mussolini

Williams is almost 60 years old, and, again, keep in mind the well-known phrase about a person being a conservative when he’s 20 years old (and supposedly not having a heart), and that same person being a liberal when he’s 40 (and therefore lacking a brain).

Even more so given the flap Williams experienced not long ago, there has to be something truly defective about him or anyone else who’s well past his or her teenage or college years — or certainly well past his middle years — who still clings to, or is infected with, liberal biases. How else can one understand the cognitive dissonance, bratty dishonesty and immature judgment of people like Williams?

dailymail.co.uk, October 2010:

National Public Radio sacked news analyst Juan Williams after he told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that when he sees Muslims on planes he gets ‘nervous’ and ‘worried’. But outraged commentators on both sides defended Williams as being honest about his feelings and saying what others are thinking.

Williams, 56, responded that too much political correctness can get in the way of reality.

‘I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country,’ Williams said.

‘But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.’

Juan Williams is just upset about the fact that while 40 per cent of welfare recipients are white, 41 percent are black. See, Juan remembers that blacks are like 12.5 per cent of the U.S. population. Whites are like maybe 75 % and shrinking. That’s why he’s so upset with Gingrich, because anyone can see that this huge percentage difference is Gringrich’s fault. Anyway, I’m not voting for Newt, but Juan’s criticism has nothing to do with it.

You might be a racist if:
— While running to be the 44th President of the United States you tell 300 million people that your WHITE grandmother was afraid of black men.
— You are the 39th President of the United States and you categorically state that people who criticize the 44th President of the United States are doing so because of the color of his skin.
— You are the 42nd President of the United States and in explaining why your wife lost the South Carolina primary you say: “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.” And when criticized for making that comment responds by accusing the campaign of his wife’s opponent of “playing the race card on me”.

I suspect Juan Williams got a lot of “now you’re just a sellout on Fox” flak from the left after the NPR dustup. Now he’s trying to show he can still be every bit the idiotic, racist lefty he was before. Fie on him.

As far as I can tell, according to Juan Williams, anyone whose beliefs or statements veer off the liberal plantation (yes picked that word intentionally) is automatically, forever after, a racist. So fine. I grew up I’m the 60s and 70s and lived through the horrors of Carter; therefore, I am as conservative as they come. So I respect the constitution, the bill of rights and the rule of law, including equal protection under that law. And for that alone, I am quite positive that Williams would consider me a racist. Hogwash, he just sees the reflection of his own race based views on everyone else. I would suggest that he stop worrying about the splinter in another’s eye and instead worry about the LOG in his own.

For those who may need a bit of brushing up on their history — and to clarify that associating blatant bigotry/racism with the Democrat Party is not restricted to generations ago, when Lincoln was in office and fighting the Civil War — the odd contradictions with liberals/Democrats behind closed doors and the way they are in public deserves to be illustrated…

calvin-coolidge.org:

Although Woodrow Wilson [Democrat/liberal and 28th president of US] received only 5% to 7% of the black vote (in the states where they could vote) [black activists] [Monroe] Trotter and W.E.B. Dubois had backed him, believing anything would be an improvement over the two previous Republican presidents. They were wrong. The new Democratic Congress immediately enacted laws barring racial intermarriage in Washington, DC. Wilson went along.

Signs bearing the words “whites only” and “blacks only” began appearing above toilets and drinking fountains throughout the city. Jim Crow practices crept into federal agencies. The number of black presidential appointees dropped sharply-from 33 to 9. Blacks only divisions were created, beginning with the Departments of Treasury, Post Office, Navy, and later the Interior, all headed by Southerners.

When black leaders voiced concern [about blacks-only windows being created in post offices], Wilson told them segregation was necessary because of the friction between [postal] clerks of both races. When Trotter reminded the president that for fifty years, clerks had worked together harmoniously–even during the previous Democratic administrations of Grover Cleveland – Wilson, by his own admission, lost both his temper and his judgment.

[D.W. Griffith’s film, “The Birth of a Nation”]…had been based on a novel, The Klansman, [a sympathetic portrayal of the KKK] by Thomas Dixon, a friend of Wilson’s. The President said the production was “like writing history with lightning. My only regret is that it’s true.” Others called it “history upside down, complete inversion of historical truth.”

A representative of the Irish American League proclaimed the production a “disgusting, brutal, libel on the colored people of the country.” Harvard’s President Emeritus Charles Eliot denounced the movie as “false history.”

________________________________________

Seattle Times, November 1991

Harry Truman, who made civil rights a federal priority for the first time since Reconstruction, expressed strong racist sentiments before, during and after his presidency, a historian says. Although Truman toned down his racist expressions after entering the White House in 1945, he continued to use racial slurs in private conversation for the rest of his life, said William Leuchtenburg, president of the American Historical Association.

In 1911, the year he turned 27, Truman wrote to his future wife, Bess: “I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a n—er or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a n—er from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman.”

“(Uncle Will) does hate Chinese and Japs,” Truman continued. “So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.”

More than 25 years later, Truman, then a U.S. senator from Missouri, wrote a letter to his daughter describing waiters at The White House as “an army of coons.” In a letter to his wife in 1939 he referred to “n—er picnic day.”

Leuchtenburg said recently that some scholars have known about Truman’s racist utterances since his letters were opened. “But somehow,” Leuchtenburg said, “this has not permeated the public consciousness.”

frontpagemag.com: In his book Confessions of a White House Ghostwriter, James Humes, who penned speeches for five presidents, related a little-known but highly revealing story he heard from the prominent impresario David Susskind. Years after Truman left office, Susskind was working with the former president on a television documentary. Wrote Humes:

Susskind said that each morning he would arrive at Truman’s house at Independence [Missouri]. He would wait on the porch on a cold February day while Mrs. Truman went to inform her husband of his arrival. After about the fourth morning, he asked the president in his walk why he was never asked inside.

“You’re a Jew, David, and no Jew has ever been in the house.”

A nonplussed Susskind replied, “I am amazed that you who recognized Israel and championed the integration of the army would say such a thing!”

“David,” he explained, “this is not the White House – it’s the Wallace [Bess Truman’s maiden name] house. Bess runs it, and there’s never been a Jew inside the house in her or her mother’s lifetime.”

_______________________________________

Larry Patterson [Bill Clinton’s bodyguard in Arkansas] confirmed that he frequently heard Bill Clinton use “n—er” to refer to both Jesse Jackson and local Little Rock black leader Robert “Say” McIntosh. Longtime Clinton paramour Dolly Kyle Browning corroborated Patterson on Clinton’s use of “n—er.” “Not only did he use the ‘N’ word, he called him a ‘GDN’ [goddamn n—er], if you catch my drift,” Browning told Fox News in 1999. [NewsMax, 17 July 2000] Brown also told NewsMax that the president would regularly make derogatory comments about African-Americans in private. “He has used the ‘N’ word before. Bill would make snide remarks about blacks behind their backs.” [Carl Limbacher and NewsMax Staff, 17 July 2000]

Patterson said Hillary was no stranger to the “N” word either. He heard her say “n—er” “probably six, eight, ten times. She would be upset with someone in the black community and she would use the ‘N’ word, like, you heard they’ve got the president’s brother on tape using the ‘N’ word.” [NewsMax, 17 July 2000]

^ These are explicit examples of why I believe that liberalism — and protecting and furthering leftism — is far more important to many on the left than whether its leading adherents (including some of the major figureheads of the Democrat Party in the 20th century) are the biggest phonies on two feet behind closed doors.

BTW, I think there is something truly deranged when anyone, regardless of his or her politics, can speak as crudely as Truman and Clinton did in private. And there’s something not much less deranged when they can rationalize away their blatant desire to discriminate as Woodrow Wilson did. Wilson, btw, was a big promoter of creating what would have been a predecessor to the UN, referring to the League of Nations. So I believe he generally fancied himself as a do-gooder liberal.

I became a Juan Williams “fan” in 1991 after reading his lengthy defense of Clarence Thomas against the bogus accusations against him.

But it’s always seemed like there’s two versions of Juan Williams.

There’s there’s the reasonable man who knows the difference between real racism vs. those who piggyback on the Civil Rights movement for political gain (and who edited the civil rights chapter of Ann Coulter’s latest book)…

… and the guy who feels a need to recover liberal “street cred” by saying ridiculous things.

As long as Juan Williams gets to define what is racism, you just can’t win an argument like that. If the definition of racist is saying something supported by evidence but disliked by the Left, then I guess we’re all racists.

The code also extends to attacks on legal immigrants, always carefully lumped in with illegal immigrants,

It’s the illegal immigrant advocates who carefully lump them together with legal immigrants to try to paint conservatives as “anti-immigrant.” Conservatives always are careful to distinguish between people who came here the “right way” and those who came here illegally. But Juan Williams can’t hear those words; I guess they’re pitched too low so he can’t hear them as clearly as the “dog whistles.”

Herman Cain was right about the brainwashing, but he was wrong to confine it just to blacks. You can see the effects of the same brainwashing on Chris Matthews or, indeed, any opinion show on MSNBC.

Anyway, you might be a racist if….

you think it’s OK for the GOP to run any candidate against the historical firstest, bestest, Black President at all!

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country,’ Williams said.

Translation: “I’m not a bigot and the evidence is in my books. So it’s beyond the pale to read anything into my comments. But those klansmen named Romney, Gingrich and Santorum dog whistling up the redneck cracker vote? They’re fair game.”

BTW, sorry Manfred. I didn’t see your comment @ #43. Otherwise I wouldn’t have said the same thing in my earlier comment.

I can guarantee it’s a thought that has occurred independently to millions of voters for quite some time all over the country as they watch the media ramp-up the dogwhistlepalooza.

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY: The fact is, when I see that still, I cannot help but to be reminded of the still photograph that was captured in 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas, of the young woman Hazel screaming at a young Elizabeth Eckford on her way trying to get into Little Rock High School, Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. And the reason I bring up that image is because what we’ve come to know about Hazel in the years later is that as a young woman, Hazel, the young woman who was screaming at Elizabeth Eckford, was not herself sort of particularly, you know, full of racial animus or anything like that. But she was, she was caught up in this moment of racial anxiety, of making this point against these people who were coming in and trying to force their way into the school, and she sort of enjoyed the show or being able to yell at Elizabeth Eckford in this moment. But that image captured all of the ugliness, all of the nastiness of the larger political milieu, and I feel that this picture does as well.

Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
Purchases made through this search function benefit this site, at no extra cost to you.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.